What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379061 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 5379061?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379061?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12919875-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379061 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 5379061?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379061?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12919875-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

181 Paterson Street, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379061 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 9am on 30 January 2026. a. Declutter and clean the interior of the house b. Removal all rubbish and inorganic items from the exterior of the house c. Mow the lawns in the front and back section d. Organise a qualified plumber to disconnect the dishwasher from the hot water cylinder water supply
As an alternative to compliance with Order 1, the Tenant must pay $4000.00 immediately.
If the Tenant fails to comply with either Order 1 or 2 above by 9.00am on 30 January 2026, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] is terminated and possession granted to the Landlord immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not attend..
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and work orders.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days, and establish that the tenant has failed to do so. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant breached their obligations by failing to keep the property reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. On 19 February 2025, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant but the breach was not remedied within the required period. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Since February 2025, the Landlord has repeatedly requested that the Tenant clean and tidy the premises. The Landlord subsequently applied to the Tribunal for a work order, and in June 2025 the parties agreed that the Tenant would comply with that work order. The Tenant failed to do so.
The Landlord made multiple further requests for compliance, including follow-up visits on 9 and 16 September 2025, which were unsuccessful. On 22 September 2025, the Tenant refused access to a contractor, citing illness. On 25 September 2025, the Tenant agreed to the Landlord attending the premises but was not present at the agreed time.
On 2 October 2025, the Landlord issued a Notice of Entry for the purpose of conducting an inspection. Access could not be obtained, and a locksmith was required as the Tenant failed to open the door. During this visit, the Tenant repeatedly requested that staff leave the premises. A further attempt by the Landlord to attend on 14 October 2025 was refused.
The Tenant has failed to cooperate and engage with the Landlord in a constructive manner. The Landlord has sought to provide appropriate supports to the Tenant. The last successful access to the premises occurred in October 2025, at which time the Landlord observed that the property was in an extremely unclean condition. The Landlord made an adhoc visit on 23 December 2025 and only had access to the exterior which they noted was untidy.
The Landlord is concerned about the impact of the condition of the premises on the Tenant’s health and wellbeing, as well as the Landlord’s inability to assess whether the property requires maintenance. During the last inspection, the Landlord observed food on the carpet and evidence consistent with intravenous drug use, giving rise to serious concerns.
Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, having heard the evidence I am satisfied the tenant will make efforts to comply with the work Order by 30 January 2026 and is unlikely to commit any further breach. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Work order
The landlord claims that the tenant has failed to keep the property clean and tidy. The landlord wants the problem fixed.
Under section 40(1)(a)-(e), Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a tenant has specific obligations in relation to the tenancy premises.
Where the Tribunal finds the tenant has failed to comply with any of these obligations, where appropriate it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the landlord to undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of doing the work, if the tenant should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Has the Tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

The Tenant failed to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy. The Landlord has provided the last inspection report which confirms the condition and visited the property prior to the hearing where they noted the exterior was still untidy.
I find from the mid tenancy photographs of the property and the level of uncleanliness that $4000.00 is an appropriate amount for an alternative money order.

Order

The Tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 9am on 30 January 2026. a. Declutter and clean the interior of the house b. Removal all rubbish and inorganic items from the exterior of the house c. Mow the lawns in the front and back section d. Organise a qualified plumber to disconnect the dishwasher from the hot water cylinder water supply
As an alternative to compliance with Order 1, the Tenant must pay $4000.00 immediately.
If the Tenant fails to comply with either Order 1 or 2 above by 9.00am on 30 January 2026, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] is terminated and possession granted to the Landlord immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not attend..
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and work orders.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days, and establish that the tenant has failed to do so. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant breached their obligations by failing to keep the property reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. On 19 February 2025, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant but the breach was not remedied within the required period. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Since February 2025, the Landlord has repeatedly requested that the Tenant clean and tidy the premises. The Landlord subsequently applied to the Tribunal for a work order, and in June 2025 the parties agreed that the Tenant would comply with that work order. The Tenant failed to do so.
The Landlord made multiple further requests for compliance, including follow-up visits on 9 and 16 September 2025, which were unsuccessful. On 22 September 2025, the Tenant refused access to a contractor, citing illness. On 25 September 2025, the Tenant agreed to the Landlord attending the premises but was not present at the agreed time.
On 2 October 2025, the Landlord issued a Notice of Entry for the purpose of conducting an inspection. Access could not be obtained, and a locksmith was required as the Tenant failed to open the door. During this visit, the Tenant repeatedly requested that staff leave the premises. A further attempt by the Landlord to attend on 14 October 2025 was refused.
The Tenant has failed to cooperate and engage with the Landlord in a constructive manner. The Landlord has sought to provide appropriate supports to the Tenant. The last successful access to the premises occurred in October 2025, at which time the Landlord observed that the property was in an extremely unclean condition. The Landlord made an adhoc visit on 23 December 2025 and only had access to the exterior which they noted was untidy.
The Landlord is concerned about the impact of the condition of the premises on the Tenant’s health and wellbeing, as well as the Landlord’s inability to assess whether the property requires maintenance. During the last inspection, the Landlord observed food on the carpet and evidence consistent with intravenous drug use, giving rise to serious concerns.
Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, having heard the evidence I am satisfied the tenant will make efforts to comply with the work Order by 30 January 2026 and is unlikely to commit any further breach. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Work order
The landlord claims that the tenant has failed to keep the property clean and tidy. The landlord wants the problem fixed.
Under section 40(1)(a)-(e), Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a tenant has specific obligations in relation to the tenancy premises.
Where the Tribunal finds the tenant has failed to comply with any of these obligations, where appropriate it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the landlord to undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of doing the work, if the tenant should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Has the Tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

The Tenant failed to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy. The Landlord has provided the last inspection report which confirms the condition and visited the property prior to the hearing where they noted the exterior was still untidy.
I find from the mid tenancy photographs of the property and the level of uncleanliness that $4000.00 is an appropriate amount for an alternative money order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379061 — 14-day notice at 181 Paterson Street, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379061 — 14-day notice at 181 Paterson Street, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Has the Tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Has the Tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.